Is it a just a thing, a JUST Culture thing or just a cultural thing?
I read a very interesting article in the May 2012 edition of Flight International magazine about the case of four defendants in the Helios Airways court case in Greece.
In August 2005, a Boeing 737 operated by Cypriot airline Helios Airways, took off from Larnaca, Cyprus for Athens, apparently and inadvertently with its pressurization control set to manual and not automatic. This was not discovered by the crew in the pre-flight checks. The story of this accident is very interesting in itself but to cut a long story short, the crew eventually succumbed to hypoxia and the aircraft crashed killing all 121 people on board.
A Cypriot Court tried three of the four Greek case defendants and found them not guilty. Apparently however, because the crash occurred on Greek soil, four defendants were subsequently tried and found guilty in a Greek Court. They received sentences of 123 years each (yes- 123 years) reduced to 10 years each in jail.
The legal logic applied to this case appears to be as simple as; there was a crash so someone must be legally responsible for it occurring; but who is responsible?
Significantly, according to the Flight International article, the Greek Court used the accident investigation report as the basis of the argument against four defendants; The Helios Managing Director, The Operations Manager, The Chief Pilot and the Engineering Manager. The evidence used to write the investigation report is not generally gathered on the same basis as criminal evidence. All are intending to appeal.
Apparently, the Engineer who was not charged in the Cypriot case assisted the investigators who later gave evidence that his actions were neither wrong nor causal. The article stated that as a result of his co-operation with investigators, he was found guilty and has landed in the slammer for 10 years. The author points out the strategic damage of cases such as this; why would someone want to assist openly with an investigation when their honesty could have life changing repercussions?
Sometimes an accident is just an accident! In an age where humans like to know everything and think they do, this is a crushing reality for some. People make mistakes and although it is sad for all concerned, there must be some acknowledgement of the fallibility of the human condition.
Is it me or am I missing something? I have been reading the ABC New Online about the reinstatement of the Tiger Airways AOC. Some of the comments posted by readers astound me. Comments like, “Sack the CASA Board”, “CASA Must Go”, “… conspiracy that Tiger is (sic) grounded.”, “Why was Tiger singled out for treatment?” and similar are thankfully outweighed by sensible comments about preservation of safety. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-12/tiger-returns-to-airways/2836122
Negative comments like those described above, are really thoughtless or should I say witless and silly. Notwithstanding that CASA is a former employer; I think these comments are ill-informed and unfair. Taxpayers, consumers and the industry fund safety regulation, and should be glad to see that they get something for their dollar.
Some people complain bitterly when there is an aircraft accident but when the aviation safety regulator does its job, I suspect the same people complain about the inconvenience or dream up some conspiratorial fantasy.
I’ve made numerous decisions like this and believe me, you earn your money at the time and then after, trying to defend yourself for doing your job properly. These are not easy decisions and any delegate worth his or her salt will be very thoughtful, careful and independent when trying to decide the best course of action. Big decisions and any remedial process sometimes takes time too. You would not expect a Supreme Court Judge to make a snap decision when it could potentially cost the defendant millions.
Australian is lauded for having one of the safest systems of civil aviation in the world. This reputation is so incredibly valuable, and one which all stakeholders must make every reasonable effort to preserve. Silly ill-imformed public comments do not serve our safety system well!
CASA has recently taken administrative certificate action against Tiger Airways. This action was taken because apparently CASA believed that permitting the airline to continue to fly posed a serious and imminent risk to air safety. This is a big call and one which I am sure was taken only after lengthy and thoughtful consideration.
Assuming the reasons justified the decision, it is pleasing to see the Australian safety regulator take strong action against a significant airline. The last time this occurred was in 2001, during the time when Mick Toller was the Director of Aviation Safety.
Whilst it is expected that large aviation operators have sophisticated management systems in place which can manage the safety and compliance requirements and issues, this recent action clearly demonstrates that external scrutiny by a knowledgeable, respected and supported safety regulator is still vitally important.
For some time, perceptions have abounded that general aviation operators and organizations are easy targets for a regulator looking to flex its muscles with significant enforcement action, whereas some say that the big end of the industry seems to avoid overt enforcement action. Perceptions are just that, and this action demonstrates that CASA has teeth and is not afraid to use them when appropriate.
Safety regulators are an essential part of the system of aviation safety, and government, big business and the public must not forget it. Heaven knows that when serious accidents occur; politicians come looking for some one to blame, and history shows that the Australian aviation safety regulator usually is the prime target.
CASA must be fully supported by Government. If , and that’s a big if, Tiger fades away, unlike the 2001 Ansett collapse, I hope that the associated funding does not also evaporate leaving the regulator in a difficult financial and operational position.
